Thursday, April 10, 2014

Tennessee Senate Approves Open Carry

The state Senate has passed a bill to allow Tennesseans to openly carry guns without a state-issued permit.

The chamber voted 25-2 in favor of the bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet.

Beavers said the measure would keep the background checks and training requirements in order to carry concealed firearms, but would allow anyone legally allowed to own a gun to carry it openly.

The bill would also remove state restrictions on the location of ammunition when firearms are being transported in vehicles, and would allow guns to be removed from cars on school property for the purposes of moving storing them in another part of the vehicle.

The companion bill is awaiting a vote in the budget subcommittee of the House Finance Committee.

This is an example of the gun-rights fanatics shooting themselves in the foot. Open carry is counter-productive to their cause. Proponents say it'll make guns more commonplace and acceptable but it works in exactly the opposite way. People who don't own guns and even reasonable gun owners see open carriers as the extremists and fanatics that they are. Ironically, open carry helps the gun control movement.

37 comments:

Well Mike, this one should be easy to prove or disprove. The question would be, has any state that allows open carry, gone on to pass more restrictive gun laws, perhaps even repealing the open carry law that you suggest helps your cause? One question I have is when we ask about open carry, are we talking about permit less carry? Or would permitted carry that doesn't require concealment like Minnesota also be included in the data set? For example, Minnesota's shall issue permit system has been in place for just over ten years and allows open carry. Just last year, there was a big push in the legislature to pass universal background checks and an assault weapon law. Many permit holders showed up open carrying in the Capitol building, which is allowed to both show and voice their opposition to the proposed legislation, and it never went anywhere. Perhaps others here with more knowlege of gun control history can share some examples I don't know about. Hopefully gun control in Tombstone won't be brought up as a success again.

Well, it could be argued that gun rights advocates openly carrying (unloaded guns) in California prompted the legislature to first ban open carry of handguns, and then expand the open carry ban to long guns.

Then again, it's also the case that the open carry ban, on top of the "may issue" concealed carry system (that in many cases ended up being "no issue," to anyone not rich and politically connected) directly led to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finding California's (and Hawaii's, and Guam's) oppressive and abusive "may issue" system to be in violation of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, ss, California is an example of that. But who says the determining factor for whether or not open carry helps your cause or ours is the subsequent change in law? That doesn't necessarily follow, especially during these years of expanding gun rights thanks to the best Supreme Court money can buy.

Exactly right on the law, Greg. This probably is DOA in the House in Tennessee (and who knows what Haslam would do if it reached him). Not many people open carry in the state as is. Nice thing about the law as it currently stands is that you don't have to worry about a strong wind blowing your jacket open or your shirt riding up like in Florida.

On the rare occasions that I've open carried it's usually been on a day I was concealed carrying but the temp hit 80-90 and I had to shed my jacket for a short time. Usually fold the jacket over my arm on that side and carry it there, so it still conceals it. Other occasion was when I had to take off the jacket so it wouldn't get crap on it while helping jump a car. One kid who was waist height noticed it (Heard a "Wow" and whispering to siblings). Nobody else did, or they didn't care and comment. Nobody looked scared or uncomfortable--if they had I'd have offered to put the gun in the trunk during the proceedings. Got their vehicle jumped, and I was off to home.

We have the one famous Gadfly in the western end of the state who likes to carry wild looking pistols ostentatiously and get into lawsuits. Yes, he's a dickhead and causes problems for the rest of us, even in this state. However, he's NOT what most open carriers in Tennessee are like, and so the reactions to him are mostly aimed at him. Others who open carry are often unnoticed--I had a friend who would sometimes open carry in Knoxville, and 90% of people around her never even noticed. Of the few who did, some would take it in stride, a few would look slightly surprised or uncomfortable, and some would walk up and strike up a conversation.

Simon, that goes along with my attitude about open carry. It's not something I want to do, but it would be good if an accidental exposure of the gun weren't treated as a crime. And when hiking in the wilderness, it would be much easier not to have to conceal my handgun.

Oh, here we go again with "he's NOT what most open carriers in Tennessee are like." That's what you say about concealed carry guys and even gun owners at large, come to think of it.

Nobody on my side is saying "most of you" are like anything. The fact is there are too many bad players, hidden criminals and such, and that's thanks to the lax gun laws in places like The Volunteer State.

Yeah, nobody is saying "most of you" are like anything...except that most of us are racist, most of us are uneducated, most of us are driven by fear and paranoia, none of us are capable of rationality or intellectual integrity, most of us aren't well trained enough, etc.

That's simply not true GC, it's your irrational, brick wall, pro gun talking points talking. We know from your comments what you consider a right, is not a right, but you say it is then blame gun control from violating that supposed right.

Simon, what I usually say, and I admit I may have slipped up a time or two, but what I usually say is too many of you are racist . . .

And I would say that one racist is too many, and that there are some racist non-gun owners, and therefore, while I acknowledge the "too many racist gun owners" charge (but happily, of course, take no responsibility for them, since they have no connection to me) there are also too many racist non-gun owners.

But don't worry--I don't hold you responsible for them, because it obviously makes no sense to hold an entire group of people responsible for the reprehensible beliefs of a few within that group.

It is most assuredly not "whining" to object to a law that criminalizes victimless and entirely innocent actions, and that is true even if the law is never enforced. A bad law doesn't become acceptable just because it is rarely (or even never enforced. The fact that it exists is a threat.

Besides, that "tiny percentage" is real people being unjustly persecuted. Are we supposed to shrug and say, "Too bad," because they aren't numerous?

Tiny percentage or not, it is the state of the law in some states. Accidental exposure is illegal in some jurisdictions, so regardless of whether there are many cases of prosecution, there is still an argument to be made to amend the law so that such exposures are no longer illegal.

With regards to your comment responding to me, you've generalized far more than "a time or two." And you have definitely painted with a broad brush of paranoia and other false motivations. Your co-bloggers have gone much further.

All of this belies your statement that "Nobody on my side is saying "most of you" are like anything."

Mikeb, you love to smear people you can't out argue. Allowing open carry does remove the possibility of someone getting charged with brandishing if the wind blows aside a shirt or jacket. It's a minor improvement, but something worth doing. Besides, I don't have a problem with open carry. I don't want to do it myself, but I don't oppose those who do.

GC, Please cite the case where a person got charged with brandishing because his shit blew open.Oh that's right, that never happened. Just as your right to buy, own, and use a gun have never been taken away, even though you keep screaming that everyday on this blog.

"Joel Smith was arrested for legally carrying a concealed firearm after he was pulled over for an expired tag. The dashcam video showed a Citrus County deputy arresting Joel Smith. After being pulled over and getting out of the vehicle, The officer saw something visible in his back pocket. Immediately the officer pulled his sidearm and said:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GijBNqUUlJc

You mean like this guy Anon? Are we now going to revert to the "that's only one" time defense since the "never happened" claim didn't work?

Kurt, talking about the poor persecuted gun owners who have been immorally arrested because the wind blew open their jacket and exposed their concealed carry piece, said this: "Besides, that "tiny percentage" is real people being unjustly persecuted."How many are they, Kurt? What is that "tiny percentage" exactly?

Simon, in the spirit of Kurt ferociously defending the rights of poor persecuted concealed carry guys everywhere, said: "so regardless of whether there are many cases of prosecution,"

What "many cases," Simon?

I would say there may have been cases in which one of you bullying idiots purposely exposed your weapon in a threatening manner and then claimed the wind blew your jacket open. Maybe that's a good reason to keep a law like this, as immoral as it is, on the books.

ss, two things about that video. One, the guy didn't have the gun concealed properly. His shirt was not long enough to conceal the weapon. And two, if open carry had been legal in his state, the cop probably would have done exactly the same thing. Open carry is not a protection against over-zealous police officers.

I have no idea, and also have no interest in researching it, because it doesn't matter. If it's one person, that's entirely too many. If--and I'm conceding nothing here--that number is zero, it's still unacceptable that the law remains as a threat, and illegitimately constrains the choices of people who wish to remain "law abiding."

You're the one who brought up "tiny percentages". If putting a number on that percentage is, for whatever bizarre reason, so important to you, you research it. I ain't your intern.

Oh, and since neither Simon or I are either bullies or idiots, what the hell do you mean by "one of you bullying idiots"?

Seriously, Mike? We should keep an unjust law because it might catch a few criminals along with a few good people?

People who care for justice can't stand to have a situation like that. We want laws carefully written to catch the bad actors and leave the innocent alone. Even if the percentage of innocent people affected is small, we want to improve the law so that it is zero.

I know you understand this idea--it's part of why you want to abolish the death penalty so that we don't kill innocent people along with the guilty. (And I know you have deeper issues with the death penalty on principle along with this reason.)

You said it never happened. Now that you were proven wrong, you say that it's not a widespread violation. You're changing the target.

And besides, it doesn't have to be a widespread thing. This case shows that this is a real thing--a real problem resulting from the state of the law. It may not have resulted in the jailing of many people, but that's no excuse for having a law that COULD result in jailing innocent people.

And it's not a case where open carry is the only way to fix it. Open carry would fix it, but if you have such a problem with open carry, it could be fixed with a law that says that inadvertent exposure is not criminal. Problem solved. Unfortunately, gun control proponents have even made it difficult to get that passed.

"Yes SS, because that's all you got and it's ridiculous that you should expect me to except it's now a proven point and a widespread violation."

Anon, when you make narrow conclusive statements like you say to Greg, you shouldn't get all frustrated when you are easily proven wrong. You current contention that it isn't a widespread occurance isn't a surprise since the tactic is in common use here. As long as you are arguing in support of gun control. In that case, its perfectly acceptable to contend that just because they aren't documented, doesn't mean it doesn't happen and the term "hidden criminal" is introduced. When Minnesota passed its shall issue permit system, it was intentionally written to not require concealment to avoid situations like that which had been documented back then. Most who carry prefer to conceal due to tactics and also out of the concern for the sensitivities of others. It is reassuring that in Minnesota I don't have to worry about inadvertent exposure. There is a fairly recent case in Minnesota of a permit holder being spotted as carrying by an LEO which resulted in three or four officers tap dancing on his head and torso. Commonly called a beat down. haven't heard anything about that recently, I'll have to do some checking.

Simon,It's a little hard to try and converse with you when you continually lie about my position. When did I ever say I had a problem with open carry? Why put me in the gun control "side" when I have repeatedly stated my position, which is not gun control? Keep the lies coming, it just proves me correct, and you a liar.

Pretty much. In Tennessee, even half of the progressives have guns. I was the gun safety guy on a big student film in college. We had three real pistols, for close ups and an airsoft armory for the rest--All of which had to be stored in a friend's safe off campus for obvious reasons (well, pistols in the safe, airsoft in a duffle next to it). One pistol was mine, one was a ROTC cadet's (he was left of center), and one belonged a progressive who I could talk pistols and whiskey with--anything else, including any other type of gun, and we were going to disagree--strongly. In the course of the film, several other progressives (none of which were quite as far left) went to the range with me and a friend and discovered their own interest in guns.

As a side note, Mr. Progressive was the first person to nearly get a beat down, twice, from the safety nazi. He was told, several times in advance, and several more times after the first incident, to unload his pistol before bringing it to the set because I did not want ANY live ammunition or loaded guns on the set. Period. First time he walks on set and starts unloading the magazine right in front of me. Second time, the gun wasn't loaded, but he had engaged the !#$%#@#$%#@#$@$%@#%#@#$@%$##@$% Taurus safety lock so that the slide couldn't be pulled back to check the chamber and make sure he hadn't left one in the pipe. Only could use it because I figured out how to disassemble it and check the barrel that way, in spite of the lock. He remains on my shit list because, as a gun owner, he should have known better. The other progressives on the cast and crew receive a little bit of mercy in my heart because they didn't know any better when they did stupid shit with the muzzle end of the prop guns (And I only let them touch airsoft due to their attitude)--that being said, it didn't stop them from getting ass chewings and a crash course in the 4 rules.

The person who got me into guns was a colleague of mine in Nashville. He's an old-school leftist who always joked with me about how we should start a faculty union.

Of course, we also one day were talking about how we both understood the appeal of rusty cars and other assorted treasures in one's yard. Another colleague of ours came up and declared his hope that he never would live near either of us.

Fun spin, Kurt, but that was to be expected. It hadn't even passed the Senate before they were marking it for death in the House. And even if they passed it, I doubt Haslam would have signed it. When he was mayor of Knoxville I figured out quickly that he was a worthless moneygrubber who had no principles, good or bad, and only worked to avoid controversy.

Hell, I can respect someone with principles I disagree with more than I can respect this guy.